Skip to main content

tv   Charlie Rose  Bloomberg  February 15, 2014 8:00pm-9:01pm EST

8:00 pm
8:01 pm
>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> i can turn this around, sir. >> rehman told me that this was your idea?
8:02 pm
>> i suggested it as an option. >> he said you believed him into it. that he thought it was a mistake. >> if he felt so strongly, he should have advised you otherwise. >> he is a politician. he relies on our political expertise as much as we rely on his business acumen. >> maybe we shouldn't point fingers until there is a problem. >> beau willimon is here. he is the man behind "house of cards." he is the creator, show runner, and lead writer. the show follows a scheming politician played by kevin spacey as he navigates the political waters of washington. here's a teaser for the season. >> i will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the offices of duty i'm about to enter, so help the goddard one heartbeat away from the presidency and not a single vote cast in my name.
8:03 pm
democracy is so overrated. let's start this new chapter with a clean slate. >> i know you will do whatever you think is best. >> the connections are troubling. >> this goes all the way to the white house. >> i need you to lead all of our phone history. >> you want me to walk away and act like i don't know anything? >> he is convincing the president to change his mind. >> it would be making a mistake. >> i feel like i'm losing control of my own administration. >> hit him again. >> he is a dangerous man. >> i want him obliterated. >> let's make them suffer. >> i don't know whether to be proud or terrified. >> i think people believe that your marriage might be a little more calculated than you let on. >> i told you to stop back channeling.
8:04 pm
>> i can turn this around. >> i think you set her up. >> i know how to handle it. >> stubbornness is far more costly than obedience. >> you let me know if anyone contacts you. >> a.j. green, fbi. >> you cannot run away from this. >> i need to know that i was not a part of it. >> finish a thought. >> part of the murder. >> i won't submit myself to the sort of exposure again. >> am i really the sort of enemy you want to make? >> you are out of line, frank. >> hunt or be hunted. welcome back.
8:05 pm
>> i am pleased to have beau willimon at the table. let's talk about the new season. let's quickly do a quick retrospect. how did you find this? >> four years ago my agent give me a call and said david fincher wanted to do a television adaptation of the bbc version of "house of cards." i heard about it, anyone who writes paul takes in the fictional world has heard about it. it having a conversation with david fincher was the end result, then it was the thing to do. i saw it and saw opportunities to make it our own. got on the phone with david. we shared all of our thoughts with one another and a lot of the same instincts and impulses and decided to team up.
8:06 pm
>> it was a huge success in britain about the parliament and the prime minister and intrigue there. and deadly, to say the least. you come here and you have to write this. you know the characters you have. what was your model? where in your mind to find frank underwood, played by kevin spacey? who is now the vice president? >> it started in an organic place. the bbc version was fantastic. he came from a place of aristocracy and privilege. i thought the american myth of anyone can be president coming from nothing and working her way up to the white house was powerful. i wanted our francis to come from a small town. my dad was from south carolina. he grew up in greenville. there is a catchphrase phrase in the bbc version. you very well might think that i can't possibly comment.
8:07 pm
when said with a british accent, it it makes perfect sense. but it is not the diction of an american. i thought, what part of the country would that diction make sense from? so i asked dad, what is a small town in south carolina that would be the last place that you think a president would come from? he said gaffney. it is perfect. there, you have a small town off of interstate 85. it is a place called hope. >> let's look at this and we will come back to other things. a moment between frank and claire. >> is she alone? >> yes. >> we you give us a few moments, please? >> what is wrong? >> it was him.
8:08 pm
>> who? >> fresh in the mirror. >> you mean -- >> please. don't do anything. >> i am not going to pin a medal on him. >> you have to. >> just a minute. >> i am begging you. please. >> i said, just a minute! >> do not make a scene. please. >> what is the relationship between these two? >> i told david during our first conversation on the phone that i wanted to do something radical. i wanted to dramatize a successful marriage. some marriages are dysfunctional and break apart and i wanted to people that drew strength from
8:09 pm
one another. their sense of power was mutual and equal. they just happen to operate by completely different roles that most conventional marriages would. >> it is an open marriage in a way. >> it forces you to ask questions like, is infidelity the right word when no rule is being broken? >> for these two people, having a degree of independence and liberty is the key to the marriage. it is a way of expressing their mutual respect for one another. >> two things you brought from that, one a political story. it was in britain and it is here. secondly, you brought the technique of speaking to camera. it works. >> we outright stolen. [laughter]
8:10 pm
one of the things we love about the bbc version was the director draft. for nine months before we started shooting the first season, kevin was doing a world tour of "richard iii." hey are complicit. they are his cohorts. >> as you look at the second season what do you think you had to do coming out of the first season? >> we knew the show on netflix was going to be a paradigmatic shift. there was a lot of attention and
8:11 pm
we hope people like it. the response we got exceeded all of our expectations. that puts a good kind of pressure on you. you want to top what you did in season one. the bright, shiny new object of releasing all the episodes in one day or releasing a show onto the internet is not there. it is just the story itself. if anything, what it did is to motivate us to expand the scope of the series, to deepen our exploration of our characters, and challenge ourselves to do even better than we did before. >> this is what your friend said -- with most other writers, you would spend time educating them about the reality of politics. he worked on three campaigns with me. >> he is being very kind. i was always very low on the totem pole, doing in the trenches type of stuff. he got me into politics.
8:12 pm
the first campaign i worked on was schumer 1998. j pulled me into that campaign. he was a political wunderkind. jay gave me access to the inter-sanctum of what was going on in the birdseye view. what i learned anecdotally from what he share with me to write "the ides of march." it tapped into the world of "house of cards." >> the movie made by george clooney. >> it would not have been made without him. george was really passionate about that project from the very beginning. he stuck by it and put in on a lot of hats -- producer, actor, writer.
8:13 pm
he is superhuman. >> have you seen monuments men? >> i have not. we are in the midst of writing season three. we got the rent all. almost all of my waking life is concentrated on trying to focus on -- >> back to the focus of season two. what did you have to do different? season one was pretty good. did you feel like you had to take it here, develop character? >> claire, definitely. really, the marriage. one of the great discoveries of season one was how powerful this marriage could be. it is something people ring up to me all the time. we wanted to be important, but that became a centerpiece. we want to see how these people operate, especially now that they have both been complicit in doing something unconscionable. with the death of peter russo and the subsequent acts of ethical, ethnically dubious -- what is that bond been now that
8:14 pm
they have blood on their hands? let's dig deeper into who are the two people that are capable of doing the sorts of things? >> this is claire and frank talking over lunch. >> he is very confident. >> does he have what it takes? >> i will see when i get his media plan. >> what about his personality? >> charming, direct, very thorough. he found our first interview together in 1986. >> i would love to see that. does he have a copy? >> i don't think so. the tv station made him watch it there. >> which screen for the president and show them how it is done. >> have you noticed anything strange between her and the president? >> how do you mean? >> ipass pass them in the hall yesterday. they seemed very intimate. >> they did seem cozy at the prep session.
8:15 pm
you think -- >> no. not necessarily. >> an interesting thought. >> planted the idea, did you? >> what i love about kevin and robin is that they muse off each retailer. when you put them in the same frame, the scene lights up. we saw their fearlessness is a real asset to us. i remember where we were shooting that scene in the bathroom, what frames that scene is that claire has been confronted with someone who did something pretty terrible to her in the past. francis is getting wind of this. that was the last scene of the day. we are at about 3:00 in the morning. the commitment, their work ethic, their ability to throw themselves at these very difficult scenes and to give so much to each other is what allows this marriage that we are trying to investigate to be so
8:16 pm
powerful and complex. it is really the strength of their craft and the power of their commitment which allows that marriage to be what it is. >> this is kevin spacey on this program talking about frank underwood. >> what i think people might enjoy about francis as a character is that he has no allegiances. he has no allegiance to party, it is not about democrat, republican, or ideology or passion. it is about opportunity to move forward. that is what he sees. that is what he does. >> there it is. there is kevin spacey telling you what it is we like about frank. >> he would know better than anyone. he does a great job great job portraying him. what people ask about frank is, is he good? is he evil? he does not see himself through that lens.
8:17 pm
he sees ethics and morality as a form of quicksand. >> he sees the end justifying the means. >> if i offer you progress, doesn't matter why i am doing it? even if you don't agree, i would rather view forward momentum and stagnation. if that does not work, let's try something else. when we are stuck in the sand, we can do nothing. i think that is attractive to a lot of people, especially now in our political climate. he sees ethics as a form of cowardice because it describes your behavior. it does not give you choices. whether you agree with that or not, that is his worldview. he would smirk at the question, are you evil? he would say, what gets me one step forward. that is the question i want to ask. that is how frances approaches life. >> who is -- was there one
8:18 pm
political character, one book that would tell us who frank underwood is? is it lyndon johnson? >> lyndon johnson is the most informative, by far. he is not a template. we are not trying to create a parallel. the books are endlessly -- >> informative. >> informative in terms of the complexity of the lyrical soul. in lbj, you see someone who came from nothing. you see someone who had a fight every step the way to get where he was. you saw someone who was absolutely determined to achieve what he set his mind to. and you saw someone who really felt more comfortable, i feel, behind the scenes, in the shadows, then in the spotlight. all of those things are applicable to frank underwood. >> that is where his gifts were. >> that's right.
8:19 pm
we see francis struggle with that. he is a contradiction. here is someone who wants power, and power tends to put you at the center of the chessboard. yet, he feels most comfortable at the edges. how do those two things mash? that is one of the big things we ask in season two and beyond. >> thank you. back in a moment. ♪ >> we are in good condition and i feel him a one of my theories is that, to get our players in better condition than any team we are participating against, whether they are or not. if they believe that, it will help them a lot and it is always been my philosophy to go with six or seven men until games are won or lost. >> john wooden was considered one of the best coaches in college basketball history. over the next decade, he won
8:20 pm
more games than bill walton. a new biography looks at the man who was called the wizard of westwood. the book is called "wooden: a coach's life." the man who wrote it is seth davis. >> i wrote a lot about him and in preparing for those interviews and writing about him, there was a much deeper story to tell. we have been presented with this two-dimensional figure who never had a bad day and no one said mean things about him. we know that is not real life. it occurred to me that no one had written a book like this. i would consider to be a classic biography from a perspective of
8:21 pm
a journalist. i want to write about the third dimension, which is not to say a book as a takedown, because it is not. we think about him as a sweet old guy reading poetry in his den. guess what? he was extremely competitive. you do not 10 championships by sitting in your den. he did not believe in talking players to his games and he had to have someone to talk to, and that was referees. a lot of great achievers, he was very insecure. like a lot of people that came out of the great depression. part of it was coming out of the great depression, and on his wedding day had $900 in the bank. in 1932 that was a lot of money. the next day, it was all gone. all the treasure you can accumulated a, it can be gone tomorrow. >> he went to the depression for a long time. would never buy anything on credit.
8:22 pm
>> there is something about people who are ultra-competitive, particularly in sports. there is a sense that whatever we do is not going to be good enough. the art of john wooden's life is that the 10 years he won those national championships were in large measure the 12 unhappiest years of his life. he was dealing with pressure, expectations, and criticism. he was very thin-skinned about criticism. he said, for my good friends in coaching, i wish they would win one national championship the one i don't think highly of, i wish they would win several. it took him 16 years to win a national title. then he started win, the team would not lose by enough. then he was winning by so much that he was criticized for ruining basketball. you're ruining the game by winning 88 games in a row. he had health issues. yet a heart attack, sleeping
8:23 pm
issues, hypertension. his last championship in 1985 was arguably his least talented championship team. he was very much on top of his game. well, of course he won championships because he had bill walton. his first championship, he did not have a single starter over 6'5". that was gail goodrich. what a lot of people don't realize about john wooden is that he was ahead of his time in his style of play. he was not a great strategist or tactician but he believed in up-tempo basketball. once that train got rolling, he could not get off. he had between the civil rights movement and the antiwar movement -- and i did write a lot about sam gilbert, who was a
8:24 pm
ucla booster, a wealthy real estate developer who lived in los angeles who over the course of many years lavished favors on john wooden's players who were in violation of ncaa rules. >> what favors? >> it was not straight cash. as you look through a prism of 2014, it almost looks quaint. he would buy tickets above face value. you point out restaurants where they could eat and not have to pay. he could go to clothing stores and get discounts and not have to pay. they talked about it being a referral service. he was the de facto agent for ucla players. he represented bill walton. this was all in violation -- it was not even a secret. they were clear violations of ncaa rules.
8:25 pm
because ucla had it going and they were the cash cow, they never did anything about it. as part of his legacy. i felt it was important to address it accurately and in context. >> was he a workaholic? >> mib overstating. if he emphasized one word, it was balance. he worked very hard but kept in balance with his family live. one of the reasons he was not popular amongst other coaches is that if you went to conventions at all, she was not out with big eyes. he was with his family. he did not go out on the road to recruit. >> every other great coach is been out to recruit. dean smith recruited. >> no question. this is one of the reasons why if people ask john wooden would be successful today, i would say he had to adapt. he would have to recruit today. it was a different time. it took in 16 years to win his first national championship. he had an assistant coach with
8:26 pm
named terry norman that recruited a lot of the early players and then won the title in 19641965 with this up-tempo style and here is this incredible seven foot prodigy from new york city. if anyone was ever too smart for his own good, it was kareem. he was seduced by the hollywood produced image of california where there was no racism and everything was sunny and great. after everyone promising the world, mr. wooden promising nothing but a chance to get an education and connected with him. i think kareem is the best to ever play. >> the college game? >> basketball, period. with all respect to michael and lebron, you talk about high school, college, and
8:27 pm
professional, i think kareem was the best. once the championship train got rolling, a kind of had its own momentum. people revered how bill walton did. a lot of it created its own momentum. >> who did he remain closest to? all of them? he is legendary for having a wonderful relationship with the players. >> very much so. what is interesting is when people say to me, what did his players think of him? my answer is, there are two guys. the guy they played for and the guy they were able to have a relationship with well into his 90's. you had him on the show. i think he was 92 or 94.
8:28 pm
>> it was clear. it did not feel like you're talking to someone who is not there. >> to the moment he stopped breathing, he was 100% mentally sharp. his body gave out. he was not emotionally connected to the players. he was not involved with their personal lives. that become old of the 60's, he would even counsel them against interracial dating. because he had issues with it, but he knew other people dead and that might cause trouble. a lot of these players, they left their experience playing for him with ambivalence or hostility towards him if they did not play. the beauty is he lived to be almost 100 and he was always available to them. as we get older, our fathers get smarter. funny how that happens. they became teachers, businessmen, doctors, lawyers, and dads who at kids of their owns who thought they did not know who they were talking about. they were able to process the
8:29 pm
things that he was trying to teach them when they were not so receptive and call him up and go to breakfast with him. yet numerous examples of people who thought that john wooden didn't care for them or didn't like them, but would talk to them. one thing about john wooden that people do not know is that he aspired to be an engineer. i think you may have had a little ocd thing going because he saw order and details and things in their place. he chose purdue because it had a civil engineering program. otherwise he would have got to indiana. he learned that he have to participate in a summary engineering camp as part of their program and he had no money. yet to make money in the summertime which put him on the path to english and on the path to coaching. he became disconcerted with the he became disconcerted with the
8:30 pm
way parents were focused on their children's grades. his feeling that a child getting a b is a success because that is the best he can do. for this child, getting a b is not success because he did not live up to his potential. >> here is a quote -- someone asked me why it took so long to win a national championship. and as i said, i am a slow learner. what you notice when i learned something, i have it down pretty good. >> 14 years to when the first ncaa tournament game. you think a coach now would go 14 years without winning a game in the tournament? he was developing his craft year, day by day, practice by practice. he wrote them by three by five index cards and he learned that in practice. there was no fire and brimstone speech. i've done my job. don't look over to the bench. he lost a couple of games because he would not call
8:31 pm
timeout. it was really an ethics class that he never intended to be coaching basketball and something called the astrodome. it was never in the grand plan. >> why is he the best in your judgment? >> because of the turnover that occurs at the college level. phil jackson, my neighbor in friend at michael in chicago and kobe and l.a., all of the championships. john wooden, even lombardi -- i would say those are the mount rushmore. >> john wooden, phil jackson -- vince lombardi -- because they did not do it one time. >> bill russell to you that it is harder to keep winning with the same players because tensions build up and it is hard
8:32 pm
to sustain. there's a great argument to be made there. again, you're talking about a guy who one with seven foot centers, small starting lineups. he won a lot of different ways. not only with the usual roster in college athletics but at a time of incredible social and evil. >> this is when he was 90 something on this program. talking about aslan coaching and life. >> for years, i would take an extra course in psychology. just to learn something about working with people because as far as knowledge of the game, be it baseball managers are basketball teacher cultures or whatever, i think the knowledge -- there is not too much difference but there is tremendous difference in the way they can get those under their supervision to get together for the company.
8:33 pm
>> he has a tuxedo because he was going to an event. >> i felt underdressed when i saw that. [laughter] >> russell and walton were there. we did a program with him and some of the guys. bill russell never played for him, obviously. love him. >> he beat him. >> there were two forces in the west to prevent him from beating -- advancing. first was -- the first was bill russell. the second was pete newell. a couple of indiana guys, very strong-willed. a lot of it had to go with sam gilbert. when ever you want to say about bob knight, and i am a fan of the boorish things he has done, there has never been it with of impropriety with ncaa rules with him.
8:34 pm
>> everyone knew about gilbert? >> everyone. jim murray, the legendary "l.a. times" columnist wrote that sam gober was more important to ucla basketball than the building of the pavilion. they were unhappy after the sophomore year and talk seriously about transferring. it is when they were put in touch with sam gilbert and related them on a personal level. sam gilbert was an old jewish guy who is able to connect with them on that level. he filled that void. whenever people would ask wooden about him, he would say he is a fabulous teacher. i may not approve of all of his methods, but he is a great coach. that really irked a bob knight to know that.
8:35 pm
>> he wasn't close to his players. ? >> when they played for him. that came later. i asked him this question. a lot of the players i talk you said you were not really invested in their personal lives. he said whether they think i was or not, i was very interested in them as people with someone said, it is interesting that he diluted him so. when i play for him, i did not like that man very much. that does not mean that john wooden was very wrong. at the time you're talking about a 20-year-old african-american kid from inner-city kansas city. he did not always understand. >> we go out with something might be surprise coming from a hugely successful basketball coach, but here it is. >> we were right next to the vietnam memorial. as anyone has ever been, there was an incredibly emotional
8:36 pm
experience. we walked out of there we both had tears running down her cheek. coach recited an incredible poem. he is so phenomenal with his poetry. >> your member what it was? >> no written word, no oral plea, can teach our youth what they should be. nor on the books on all the shelves. it is what the teachers are themselves. they asked me why i teach. they ask me why i teach and i reply, where can i find such splendid company? there sits a statesman, unbiased, >> . a doctor sits behind him was quick, steady and may mended bone or stem the lifeblood's flow. and there, a builder who built the upper spire on the church. those men who work and build until tomorrow. i may say, that i may not eat the food or see the church or
8:37 pm
hear the word and where they speak and yet again, i may. and later, i may say, i knew him once and he was weak or strong or proud or bold or gay. i knew him once, but then, he was a boy. he asked me why i teach, and i reply, where can i find such splendid company? >> 92? i couldn't do that if you paid me. >> thank you. back in a moment. ♪ >> many lights appeared above my head and they were like a latter of lights with many rungs. i seized the first and began to ascend from the river.
8:38 pm
the ladder twisted and it was not easy to climb, but the bank began to receive from me as did the waters and i took the rungs of this ladder one by one. >> matthew barney is here. he is an artist and film maker known for the "cremaster" cycle. he has worked on the film since 2007 with composer jonathan dentler. it premieres at the recording academy of music on february 12. i am pleased to have him here at the table. how did this start for you? >> i lost my way with the films i had been making.
8:39 pm
>> lost your way? >> i felt like i was going to repeat the same pattern over and over again. i thought that i could let go a little bit of control, the control you get used to as a filmmaker, that i could find a new perspective. jonathan and i had been talking about taking on a form of opera in some way. doing what we had done in the "cremaster" cycle but in front of an audience, doing it in real time. letting it happen that the way it often had onset, in the sense that i often set of scenes anyway that is much more to do with the performance than traditional filmmaking.
8:40 pm
i tend to set up a situation and let it run. in that way, i film more than i need to. it is not economical but it is the way i have voice done it. in a certain sense, we felt that if the audience could see what is happening onset, they would have a greater understanding of what the spirit of the project is. around that same time norman mailer invited me to an award ceremony. he was effectively given the french legion of honor. i talked to him afterwards and he said, have you ever read this book? i said i hadn't. he said you should read the first hundred pages and get back to me. >> sure. >> sure. why? >> he said, i think there's something in this for you. i said, i don't want to make films right now. i went and read the book, read the first hundred pages, and they wrote back saying, i am interested in this but i am interested in using a libretto for whatever it is jonathan and i are talking about.
8:41 pm
if this is an opera, if this is a specific piece of situational theater, i am not sure what it is but it is not a film. norman passed away not long after that. what we ended up is a hybrid. it is somewhere between documentary footage of performances, live performances, and a piece of cinema. >> you were going to make it before he died? >> yes. >> he considered "ancient evenings" to be his best work. he thought it was his most misunderstood work as well. talk about that. >> we didn't talk about that. we talked about "cremaster 3" -- >> your work, not his.
8:42 pm
>> we use that as a way of talking about the book because "cremaster 3" dealt with masonic mythology and this dealt with the egyptian mythology. when he's just of, i thought i had already dealt with egypt and mythology as directly as i would be comfortable dealing with it. "ancient evenings" is about the core mythology of isis, osiris. i was terrified to read it and think, how can you do with this material in a way that is not cliché. mailer, and this hypersexual way, which interested me, but it was also a form of explicit sexual imagery that is different from the way that i would choose to do it. it was another way in, i would say, the eroticism of the book
8:43 pm
was another way in for me. >> what is the story fundamentally about? >> "river of fundament" is as influenced by harold bloom's review of "ancient evenings those quote as it is by the text. he suggested it is autobiographical. that there is a protagonist to as a nobleman. the nobleman work for the pharaoh. the nobleman invariably once with the pharaoh has. he uses sorcery to figure out a way to live again. through these tricks and devices, he can have life again. although, by blood he does not deserve it. bloom suggested that if mailer is the noble man, hemingway is the pharaoh. mailer wanted to write the great
8:44 pm
american novel. he wanted that position and that may have been a time when america did not need that. as cinema became more and more important, whatever the reason. that relationship between mailer and hemingway over the pharaoh and the nobleman became central to "river of fundament." >> norman was on the show if number of times and in this clip, he talks about reincarnation. >> i believe there is a life after death. i believe in reincarnation. it makes sense to me. when you have all the stuff for unless it is used over and over again?
8:45 pm
>> any notion of who you would be before? >> no. >> you get a notion that you have to work because you have not hit the homerun the you have not wanted to it? >> you never hit the homerun you wanted to hit. >> mozart died an unhappy man. >> you have to keep your sights above what you have done so far. i will die dissatisfied, of course. >> does that resonate with you? >> yeah, of course. again, when the book was suggested to me, or handed to me in a certain way, i started feeling like the -- my touching point, which was "cremaster 3" and its relationship to egyptian mythology that all i could do was collide two languages there were very much at odds in the sense that "cremaster 3" and the "cremaster" cycle was an entropic cycle and i could only collide this without model which was more religious.
8:46 pm
that became interesting to me and i think it led jonathan and i eventually to add the language of whitman and emerson and other writers as a way of colliding with mailer's language, which happens more and more as the film progresses. >> take a look at this. it is a central scene in the film. >> it is early in the film, but it is central. >> here we are. we are here to celebrate norman mailer, a man who, as the song
8:47 pm
goes, did it his way. to his public key never seemed afraid of his own mortality. not norman area no. and yet, in reality norman was a deeply sensitive soul full of doubt. i remember when "ancient evenings" came out in the early 80's and nobody like it. here was a sprawling, ambitious work hurled into the arena and no one bit. norman did not seem to care. but i know he did. the world was not ready for a book like "ancient evenings." we didn't understand it then.
8:48 pm
now we can. ♪ now we can. we do. i think i speak for all of us when i say we love him. very much. >> what did we just see? >> it is the beginning of the film in a sense that the film begins in a much more naturalistic way. there are guests at a wake for norman mailer and over the course of the film, slowly the naturalistic guests are replaced by spirits, including several spirits of norman himself. what i guess we are seeing is the order of that change. the scene that follows is the
8:49 pm
first spirit of norman entering. probably more important, music begins to creep into the room. in the sense that this film has something to do with the tradition of opera, the scenes are something like the very beginnings of the narrative as it is sung. this happens more and more as the film progresses. >> among the people there were salman rushdie, liz smith, maggie gyllenhaal. why them? >> some of them had a relationship to norman. i think it was an idea to create them in a believable way. other actors were cast as an extension of making it naturalistic, to find people who sensibility aligns with that. for example, paul giamatti, ellen burstyn word chosen for that reason.
8:50 pm
>> you wanted me to come in participate but our schedules did not match up. it looks remarkable. you put it on a barge. >> this is the top floor of a brownstone in brooklyn heights. that is 1-1 scale. mailer opened up the roof and built an extension on top which is quite eccentric. it had these ladders and ropes and plank ways that he would descend and cross every day to get to a position in a crow's nest of sorts where he could
8:51 pm
look out the window over the new york harbor, said at a desk, and write. when i first visited, that resonated very much and that ended up being another structural element in the film. the film ends in thatwriting position. the last version of the spirits of norman, who is performed by chief david beautiful bald eagle, a lakota man of 95, is the one who occupies the chair. >> what is the elation should you have with butler? >> he did the music for the "cremaster" cycle. in the case of those films, it was sort of a combination of traditional scoring to developing scenes together.
8:52 pm
in this case, we developed all of it together. we start with the writing together and set up each scene as a condition for music, whether the physical situation would drive that or the musical concept would drive that. there was a little bit of both. it was collaborative in that sense, that we started writing together >> it premieres on february 12? congratulations, matthew barney. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪
8:53 pm
8:54 pm
8:55 pm
8:56 pm
8:57 pm
8:58 pm
8:59 pm
9:00 pm
>> in the middle of the mojave desert. one of the most storied cities in the world. this is las vegas. where fortunes are won and lost, where lives are made and destroyed, where the house always wins. until it can't. >> a lot of pain and stress out here. >> one gambler preyed on the casinos in its weakest moments and walked away with more than $15 million in a single winning streak. people say you play perfectly.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on